Form A Commonwealth Of Australia Statutory Declaration: Fill & Download for Free

Australia (below): (also see Canada and United Kingdom)A statutory declaration is a written statement which you sign and declare to be true before an authorised witness. Commonwealth statutory declarations are different than state and territory statutory declarations.Statutory declarations are commonly used to legally verify names, addresses, insurance claims, superannuation matters, lost passports and as evidence to support sick leave.A statutory declaration is not the same as an affidavit, although they have similar purposes. An affidavit is a written statement of fact, confirmed by oath or affirmation for use as evidence in court proceedings. A statutory declaration is also a statement of fact, but is not confirmed by oath or affirmation.Statutory declarations are used to give evidence in most other situations. If you need an affidavit for a court proceeding, contact the court in which your matter is being heard for assistance.If you are unsure if a statutory declaration can be used for your circumstances, check with the organisation that has requested the statutory declaration, or consider seeking legal advice.Anyone can make a statutory declaration under the Statutory Declarations Act 1959.A Commonwealth statutory declaration must be in the prescribed form and must contain all of the elements required under the Statutory Declarations Act 1959 and Statutory Declarations Regulations 1993. See Statutory Declaration form.Common examples of an authorised witness include a doctor, lawyer, Notary Public, Justice of the Peace and some other respected/trusted occupations. Police stations often have a Justice of the Peace available at certain times. (See list of authorised witnesses on Australia Attorney General website)An authorised witness for a statutory declaration should:1. check the identity of the person making the statutory declaration2. check to the extent possible, that the person is competent to make the statutory declaration3. remind the person that he or she will be claiming that the statements in the declaration (and any attachments) are true and that there are penalties for making false statements4. check that the form does not contain any blanks.A person who is authorised to witness a state or territory statutory declaration is also authorised to witness a Commonwealth statutory declaration made within that state or territory.If you intentionally make a false statement in a statutory declaration you can be charged with a criminal offence which carries the possibility of up to four years imprisonment.Fees: there are no restrictions under Australian law preventing authorised witnesses from charging a fee. However, Justices of the Peace are prevented from charging a fee to witness a statutory declaration under their relevant state or territory codes of conduct.See FAQs on Statutory Declaration.

I’m the author of this answer and Canadian so I get to pick the posters.Seriously…. I’ve been reading the 30 odd answers posted and noticed a bit of a trend and misconceptions. Let's look into it.The United Kingdom was well on her way to breaking up before the war. People have claimed she broke up after the war. Not true. We have The Statute of Westminster of 1931. You can do a search by clicking here or read the quote below: statute of Westminster - Bing“The Statute of Westminster 1931 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom and modified versions of it are now domestic law within Australia and Canada; it has been repealed in New Zealand and implicitly in former Dominions that are no longer Commonwealth realms. Passed on 11 December 1931, the act, either immediately or upon ratification, effectively both established the legislative independence of the self-governing Dominions of the British Empire from the United Kingdom and bound them all to seek each other's approval for changes to monarchical titles and the common line of succession. It thus became a statutory embodiment of the principles of equality and common allegiance to the Crown set out in the Balfour Declaration of 1926. As the Statute removed nearly all of the British Parliament's authority to legislate for the Dominions, it had the effect of making the Dominions fully sovereign nations in their own right. It was a crucial step in the development of the Dominions as separate states.” [1]Actually, the Act was preceded by the Balfour Declaration of 1926 - Wikipedia.To prove that Canada was now sovereign, she took a week to declare war on Germany after the British and declared war on Japan one day before the Americans.September 3, 1939…. The UK along with Australia declared war on Germany.[2]September 10, 1939…. Canada declared war on Germany. [2]Of course, the Americans stayed out. Now, this is the second issue I’d like to point out. What would have happened in 1939 had The United States joined the British Commonwealth? With America’s huge manufacturing capacity, what would have happened? Would the Japanese attack the Americans and British at all? Would Italy go to war the following summer? How many lives could have been saved?If The UK was pegged as the biggest loser of the winning side….. what part did America play in that?Well, to be honest, it was a dark period for democracy between 1939 and 1941. The British Commonwealth was pretty much the only viable resistance left against fascism [3] in defence of democracy[4]. Had we lost North Africa, the Mediterranean theatre, Gibraltar, and the Isles of Britain, how could Canada and America launch an attack on Europe later? With all the might that German and later Italy had to throw at the USSR because there wasn’t an Eastern Front, would the Russians still beat the odds? Britain and the Commonwealth had to hold on for time.Even though The United States neutrality acts of the 1930s [6] tried to keep America out of the war, President Roosevelt knew better. It would only be a matter of time. With sneaky tactics, he managed to circumvent the acts and along with Canada’s cooperation delivered much-needed war materiel (material-parts, materiel-finished articles like tanks) to the Commonwealth.Another misconception is Canada’s and other Commonwealth nations’ role in the early stages of WWII. Canada was not under Britain's control. She was her own country. The American military and Roosevelt knew a war was coming and needed to prepare for the worst case scenario. That would be the loss of Europe I mentioned above. Britain had already moved all her gold reserves to Ottawa and was preparing to move everything it could to Canada in that worse case senerio…. including the prized British Fleet.But to continue the fight America was needed and in an active role. McKenzie King and Roosevelt could use this argument of national defence to form a treaty to unite with Canada to fight off the Nazis. But, Rosevelt wanted the mighty British Fleet under US command if that ever happened. Churchill wasn’t excited about that. It was the Prime Minister of Canada, McKenzie King, who worked on Churchill. Eventually, we have this. Ogdensburg Agreement - Wikipedia and later this Permanent Joint Board on Defense - Wikipedia. Churchhill was not happy. At this point in history, world power shifted from Britain to The United States with the help of Canada. The stage was set in August of 1940.The Japanese helped out on Dec 7, of 1941. A number of strategic British and American installations were hit along with Pearl Harbor. Hong Kong was one. Canada had two regiments stationed there and lost 2000 after 2 weeks of bloody fighting.The Americans were finally in.By this time Canada had a significant military and manufacturing buildup. The end of the war would see Canada with the third or fourth largest military in the world. One programme that started off early in the war and the Americans used at the start of their war was the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan - Wikipedia. Britains answer to training much-needed flight crews and fighter pilots with much of it centred in Canada. A flight/fighter instructor of the “Red Tails” was one [5].Britain and Commonwealth bought time for the Americans with their blood. Had Britain lost Europe, it would have been very difficult if impossible for the remaining Commonwealth and The United States to win. American propaganda film actually pointed this out in the series, “Why We Fight” in the episode, “War Comes to America [8].You can view the series on YouTube.The rest, as they say, was history.I don’t think there was a loser. Britain was already shifting from colonial/empire rule with the Statute of Westminster. It was only a matter of time. She was one of few countries that actually paid America back for war loans. Today, a relatively small island with a population of 68 million, she still has clout. Canada transformed itself from an agricultural to an industrial based economy during the war and is in the top ten of the world’s economies. The United States became a superpower with a huge population and enormous manufacturing capabilities.On second thought…. maybe there was. It’s hard to fantom why the Patriots had the drive to separate from Great Britain in 1778 with the Treaty of Paris [7]. Canada became a dominion in 1867…. about 89 years later. And you can’t really say they suffered at all by not joining the Patriots. Had the Patriots held off and remained within the 21 British North American colonies, the resulting country would have been huge. No American War of Independence, no American Civil War, WWI would have been short-lived and no WWII. At the very least, WWII would have been short. A lot of lives would have been saved.So in a way, you could say that the 13 colonies and Vermont lost out. Pity.[1] Quote from Wikipedia: The Statute of Westminster 1931.[2] Declarations of war during World War II - Wikipedia[3] fascism - Bing[4] democracy - Bing[5] Mentioned in the Red Tail movie (2012).[6] Neutrality Acts of the 1930s - Wikipedia[7] 1778 treaty of paris[8] Why We Fight - Wikipedia

Australians certainly exercise something similar to free speech ….on a regular basis.But Australia does not have explicit freedom of speech in any constitutional or statutory declaration of rights, with the exception of political speech which is protected from criminal prosecution at common law per Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v Commonwealth. There is however an implied freedom of speech that was recognised in Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation.[63]In 1992 the High Court of Australia judged in the case of Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v Commonwealth that the Australian Constitution, by providing for a system of representative and responsible government, implied the protection of political communication as an essential element of that system.[64]This freedom of political communication is not a broad freedom of speech as in other countries, but rather a freedom whose purpose is only to protect political free speech. This freedom of political free speech is a shield against government prosecution, not a shield against private prosecution (civil law). It is also less a causal mechanism in itself, rather than simply a boundary which can be adjudged to be breached. Despite the court's ruling, however, not all political speech appears to be protected in Australia and several laws criminalise forms of speech that would be protected in republic countries such as the United States.[citation needed]In 1996, Albert Langer was imprisoned for advocating that voters fill out their ballot papers in a way that was invalid.[65][66]Amnesty International declared Langer to be a prisoner of conscience.[67]The section which outlawed Langer from encouraging people to vote this way has since been repealed and the law now says only that it is an offence to print or publish material which may deceive or mislead a voter.The Howard Government expanded sedition law as part of the war on terror. Media Watchran a series on the amendments on ABC television.[68]In 2003,[69]CSIRO senior scientist Graeme Pearman was reprimanded and encouraged to resign after he spoke out on global warming.[70]The Howard Government was accused of limiting the speech of Pearman and other scientists.In 2010, journalist Andrew Bolt was sued in the Federal Court over two posts on his Herald Sunblog in 2009. Bolt was found to have contravened the Racial Discrimination Act 1975(Cth) in 2011 following comments regarded to be representative of a "eugenic" approach to aboriginal identity.[71][72]This prompted the federal government to propose changes to the Racial Discrimination Act but this has been met with stiff resistance.[73]In 2014 the Supreme Court of Victoria issued a blanket media gag order on the reporting of a high-profile international corruption case.[74][75]The gag order prevented the publishing of articles regarding bribes presented to high-ranking officials of Malaysia, Indonesia and Vietnam by senior executives of the Reserve Bank of Australia in order to secure the adoption of the Australian invented and produced polymer banknotetechnology.